OK, maybe it's just me:
11/11/12 19:13![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
But why is it that sleeping with a woman he's not married to is all it takes to get a CIA director out of office? I mean it seems a rather underwhelming offense given how many people who retain their positions in office *coughDavidVittercough* happen to have done much worse things and retain their position and shamelessly keep doing the same kind of foolishness they got in trouble for beforehand. In today's America where the self-appointed defenders of traditional marriage cheat on their cancer-stricken wives to establish the bases for their third marriages and where sexual mores have changed for the better, how is this is at all a cause to dismiss anyone or for anyone to resign?
Sure, it might be bad 'if they talk' but then again, people like J. Edgar Hoover got away with much more than this. I really don't know what to make of Petraeus's resignation, so I'm basically asking you guys:
If someone in that position is boinking someone who's not his wife, should that alone be enough to lead to his resignation? (I admit to gendered bias in the question here but there aren't too many female politicians involved in sex scandals yet so that can be excused). I don't think it should be and I find the whole reaction to have more to do with puritanical pseudo-moralism than anything inherent in the offense. What do you think?
Sure, it might be bad 'if they talk' but then again, people like J. Edgar Hoover got away with much more than this. I really don't know what to make of Petraeus's resignation, so I'm basically asking you guys:
If someone in that position is boinking someone who's not his wife, should that alone be enough to lead to his resignation? (I admit to gendered bias in the question here but there aren't too many female politicians involved in sex scandals yet so that can be excused). I don't think it should be and I find the whole reaction to have more to do with puritanical pseudo-moralism than anything inherent in the offense. What do you think?
(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 01:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 01:48 (UTC)He could run for congress. Having an affair seems to be a requirement for that. This one didn't involve an intern, drugging, or a men's bathroom, but I still think it will count.
(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 02:05 (UTC)Or maybe possibility of blackmail like mikey has stated. This is the CIA we're talking about here.
(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 03:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 04:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 06:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 06:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 09:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 10:24 (UTC)Ms. Broadwell was an officer in the Army reserves and as a result, had a high security clearance herself. The article that you link to states that the classified documents found on Broadwell's computer did not originate from Mr. Patreaus. There also was no evidence of a security breach found and, as such, no charges were sought.
(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 10:44 (UTC)http://news.yahoo.com/petraeus-may-called-u-inquiry-benghazi-feinstein-040127558.html
But on a more pertinent note, in the intelligence community, having an affair is always a security risk, and you can't have a security risk at the head of the CIA.
(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 11:20 (UTC)From the same article you linked to:
"The California Democrat said there was no connection between Petraeus' resignation and the September 11, 2012, killings in Benghazi."
Maybe it's time for this unfounded conspiracy theory to die.
(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 12:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 13:53 (UTC)Well there's an unbiased refutation from a politician, a profession known for honor and veracity..
(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 14:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 14:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 14:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 14:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 14:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 14:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 14:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 15:17 (UTC)To be expected from someone who seems to be trying to propogate the conspiracy theory. Diane Feinstein is the one calling for the investigation in the first place.
(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 16:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 16:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 16:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 16:17 (UTC)